Marshall Shane Lovell v. State
01-15-00045-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 29, 2015Background
- Police received a Crimestoppers tip that Marshall Shane Lovell was manufacturing meth at his home; Detective Chris Lima contacted Lovell who admitted possession but refused consent to search.
- Lima prepared a three-page affidavit and sent it to be printed; Detective Howard Smith took the printed affidavit to Judge Elizabeth Coker, who signed the warrant; officers then searched and seized large quantities of meth and precursor chemicals.
- The copy of the affidavit retained in the judge’s office was missing a middle page (appeared two pages and truncated), though Lima’s case file contained the three-page affidavit; Lima testified the omission was a copying/printer error.
- Lovell moved to suppress evidence seized under the warrant, arguing (1) the affidavit before the magistrate lacked probable cause (because the judge’s copy was incomplete) and (2) insufficient proof the affiant was sworn under oath per art. 18.01.
- The trial court found the affidavit presented to Judge Coker was three pages, treated the missing page in the judge’s file as a ministerial copying error, denied the suppression motion, and Lovell pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to deliver; sentence 50 years concurrent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit supported probable cause for the search warrant | Lovell: The affidavit before the magistrate was only two pages and omitted facts showing probable cause, so the warrant is invalid | State: Missing page in judge’s copy was a ministerial/copying error; the original three-page affidavit established probable cause | Court: Trial court found the affidavit presented to the magistrate was three pages; deferential review upheld probable cause and validity of the warrant |
| Whether evidence shows the affiant was properly sworn under art. 18.01(b) | Lovell: Insufficient evidence that the affiant swore to the affidavit before the magistrate, invalidating the warrant | State: Judge’s practice and documentary language indicate the affidavit was sworn; procedural defects do not vitiate the oath | Court: Testimony of Judge Coker and Detective Smith plus affidavit/warrant statements sufficed to show the affiant was sworn; warrant valid |
| Preservation of error for cause 22,709 | Lovell: (attempted) challenge to suppression for that cause | State: Motion to suppress expressly excluded cause 22,709 | Court: Error not preserved for cause 22,709 because suppression motion did not timely raise it |
Key Cases Cited
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings; defer to trial court’s factual findings)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial court credibility and factual findings)
- McLain v. State, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (magistrate’s probable-cause decision reviewed deferentially; four-corners rule applies for affidavit content)
- Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (requirements to preserve error on appeal through timely objection/motion and ruling)
- Smith v. State, 207 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (affidavit must be sworn but procedural defects may not invalidate warrant if oath shown)
- Clay v. State, 391 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (purpose of requirement that affidavit be sworn is to impress obligation to tell the truth)